Wo Hing Engineering Ltd. v. Tyco Engineering & Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of CACV 1120/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 17 April 2002 before Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Ma J.
Civil Appeal — Contract dispute — Appeal against aggregate sum awarded — Defendant abandoned appeal against part of the sum ($717,688) — Court clarified that amount and interest awarded below to stand — Costs order amended to award costs below to the successful appellant on appeal, Wo Hing Engineering Limited. The Court of Appeal consisting of Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Ma J delivered the decision with agreement on addendum matters. Representation was by Mr Peter Graham (Deacons) for the plaintiff/respondent and Mr Peter Clayton (Denton Wilde Sapte) for the defendant/appellant. Appeal allowed in part; costs below awarded to Wo Hing.
Outcome: Appeal allowed in part; judgment for Wo Hing affirmed in part including sum of $717,688 with interest; costs below awarded to Wo Hing.
Cites 1 case
|
CACV001120A/2000 CACV 1120/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1120 OF 2000 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCT NO. 40 OF 1999) __________________________
__________________________ Coram: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Ma J in Court Date of Hearing: 12-13 March 2002 Date of Judgment: 17 April 2002 Date of Addendum to Judgment: 29 April 2002 _______________________________ ADDENDUM TO JUDGMENT _______________________________ Hon Le Pichon JA: 1.In the judgment handed down on 17 April 2002, two matters had been overlooked. First, the judge had given judgment in favour of Wo Hing in the sum of $4,783,102 which comprised of two separate amounts one of which was the sum of $717,688. The appeal was against the aggregate sum awarded. By the time of the appeal, Tyco had abandoned its appeal in relation to the award of $717,688. The judgment of 17 April dealt only with the amount involved in the substantive appeal. Accordingly, the judge's order in relation to this sum of $717,688 together with interest at prime rate plus 1% from 24 April 1999 until full payment should stand. 2.Second, the costs order made on 17 April 2002 did not specifically deal with the costs order made by the judge below. Since Wo Hing has succeeded in its appeal, it should also be entitled to the costs below. Hon Ma J: 3.I agree. Hon Rogers VP: 4.I agree. The order on the appeal will therefore include the matters referred to herein.
Representation: Mr Peter Graham, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the Plaintiff/Respondent Mr Peter Clayton, instructed by Messrs Denton Wilde Sapte, for the Defendant/Appellant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 1120/2000